Heather Cox Richardson pulls together the signs of Trump’s descent into unapologetic fascism. He offers no agenda or policies for the future, but focuses instead of who he will punish. Immigrants, he insists, are the biggest problem facing the nation. He promises to restore the U.S. to its imagined glory of white male Christian supremacy. If elected, he will call out the National Guard or the military to round up not only immigrants but his political enemies. He is a dangerous man. He is increasingly paranoid, determined to punish his enemies. Will he imprison Harris, Biden, Clinton, Obama, Newsom, and others who have opposed him?
She writes:
“He is the most dangerous person ever. I had suspicions when I talked to you about his mental decline and so forth, but now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is now the most dangerous person to this country…a fascist to the core.”
This is how former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer and the primary military advisor to the president, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council, described former president Donald Trump to veteran journalist Bob Woodward. Trump appointed Milley to that position.
Since he announced his presidential candidacy in June 2015 by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, Trump has trafficked in racist anti-immigrant stories. But since the September 10 presidential debate when he drew ridicule for his outburst regurgitating the lie that legal Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating their white neighbors’ pets, Trump has used increasingly fascist rhetoric. By this weekend, he had fully embraced the idea that the United States is being overrun by Black and Brown criminals and that they, along with their Democratic accomplices, must be rounded up, deported, or executed, with the help of the military.
Myah Ward of Politico noted on October 12 that Trump’s speeches have escalated to the point that he now promises that he alone can save the country from those people he calls “animals,” “stone cold killers,” the “worst people,” and the “enemy from within.” He falsely claims Vice President Kamala Harris “has imported an army of illegal alien gang members and migrant criminals from the dungeons of the third world…from prisons and jails and insane asylums and mental institutions, and she has had them resettled beautifully into your community to prey upon innocent American citizens.”
Trump’s behavior is Authoritarianism 101. In a 1951 book called The True Believer, political philosopher Eric Hoffer noted that demagogues appeal to a disaffected population whose members feel they have lost the power they previously held, that they have been displaced either religiously, economically, culturally, or politically. Such people are willing to follow a leader who promises to return them to their former positions of prominence and thus to make the nation great again.
But to cement their loyalty, the leader has to give them someone to hate. Who that is doesn’t really matter: the group simply has to be blamed for all the troubles the leader’s supporters are suffering. Trump has kept his base firmly behind him by demonizing immigrants, the media, and, increasingly, Democrats, deflecting his own shortcomings by blaming these groups for undermining him.
According to Hoffer, there’s a psychological trick to the way this rhetoric works that makes loyalty to such a leader get stronger as that leader’s behavior deteriorates. People who sign on to the idea that they are standing with their leader against an enemy begin to attack their opponents, and in order to justify their attacks, they have to convince themselves that that enemy is not good-intentioned, as they are, but evil. And the worse they behave, the more they have to believe their enemies deserve to be treated badly.
According to Hoffer, so long as they are unified against an enemy, true believers will support their leader no matter how outrageous his behavior gets. Indeed, their loyalty will only grow stronger as his behavior becomes more and more extreme. Turning against him would force them to own their own part in his attacks on those former enemies they would now have to recognize as ordinary human beings like themselves.
At a MAGA rally in Aurora, Colorado, on October 11, Trump added to this formula his determination to use the federal government to attack those he calls enemies. Standing on a stage with a backdrop that read, “DEPORT ILLEGALS NOW” and “END MIGRANT CRIME,” he insisted that the city had been taken over by Venezuelan gangs and proposed a federal program he called “Operation Aurora” to remove those immigrants he insists are members of “savage gangs.” When Trump said, “We have to live with these animals, but we won’t live with them for long,” a person in the crowd shouted: “Kill them!”
Officials in Aurora emphatically deny Trump’s claim that the city is a “war zone.” Republican mayor Mike Coffman said that Aurora is “not a city overrun by Venezuelan gangs” and that such statements are “grossly exaggerated.” While there have been incidents, they “were limited to several apartment complexes in this city of more than 400,000 residents.” The chief of the Aurora police agreed that the city is “not by any means overtaken by Venezuelan gangs.”
In Aurora, Trump also promised to “invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.” As legal analyst Asha Rangappa explains, the Alien Enemies Act authorizes the government to round up, detain, and deport foreign nationals of a country with which the U.S. is at war. But it is virtually certain Trump didn’t come up with the idea to use that law on his own, raising the question of who really will be in charge of policy in a second Trump administration.
Trump aide Stephen Miller seems the likely candidate to run immigration policy. He has promised to begin a project of “denaturalization,” that is, stripping naturalized citizens of their citizenship. He, too, spoke at Aurora, leading the audience in booing photos that were allegedly of migrant criminals.
Before Miller spoke, a host from Right Side Broadcasting used the dehumanizing language associated with genocide, saying of migrants: “These people, they are so evil. They are not your run-of-the-mill criminal. They are people that are Satanic. They are involved in human sacrifice. They are raping men, women, and children—especially underaged children.” Trump added the old trope of a population carrying disease, saying that immigrants are “very very very sick with highly contagious disease, and they’re let into our country to infect our country.”
Trump promised the audience in Aurora that he would “liberate Colorado. I will give you back your freedom and your life.”
On Saturday, October 12, Trump held a rally in Coachella, California, where temperatures near 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) sparked heat-related illnesses in his audience as he spoke for about 80 minutes in the apocalyptic vein he has adopted lately. After the rally, shuttle buses failed to arrive to take attendees back to their cars, leaving them stranded.
And on Sunday, October 13, Trump made the full leap to authoritarianism, calling for using the federal government not only against immigrants, but also against his political opponents. After weeks of complaining about the “enemy within,” Trump suggested that those who oppose him in the 2024 election are the nation’s most serious problem.
He told Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo that even more troubling for the forthcoming election than immigrants “is the enemy from within…we have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics…. And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”
Trump’s campaign seems to be deliberately pushing the comparisons to historic American fascism by announcing that Trump will hold a rally at New York City’s Madison Square Garden on October 27, an echo of a February 1939 rally held there by American Nazis in honor of President George Washington’s birthday. More than 20,000 people showed up for the “true Americanism” event, held on a stage that featured a huge portrait of Washington in his Continental Army uniform flanked by swastikas.
Trump’s full-throated embrace of Nazi “race science” and fascism is deadly dangerous, but there is something notable about Trump’s recent rallies that undermines his claims that he is winning the 2024 election. Trump is not holding these rallies in the swing states he needs to win but rather is holding them in states—Colorado, California, New York—that he is almost certain to lose by a lot.
Longtime Republican operative Matthew Bartlett told Matt Dixon and Allan Smith of NBC News: “This does not seem like a campaign putting their candidate in critical vote-rich or swing vote locations—it seems more like a candidate who wants his campaign to put on rallies for optics and vibes.”
Trump seems eager to demonstrate that he is a strongman, a dominant candidate, when in fact he has refused another debate with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and backed out of an interview with 60 Minutes. He has refused to release a medical report although his mental acuity is a topic of concern as he rambles through speeches and seems entirely untethered from reality. And as Harris turns out larger numbers for her rallies in swing states than he does, he appears to be turning bloodthirsty in Democratic areas.
Today, Harris told a rally of her own in North Carolina: “[Trump] is not being transparent…. He refuses to release his medical records. I’ve done it. Every other presidential candidate in the modern era has done it. He is unwilling to do a 60 Minutes interview like every other major party candidate has done for more than half a century. He is unwilling to meet for a second debate…. It makes you wonder, why does his staff want him to hide away?… Are they afraid that people will see that he is too weak and unstable to lead America? Is that what’s going on?”
“For these reasons and so many more,” she said, “it is time to turn the page.”
—

That this candidate is virtually tied in the polls, and is leading in my state about 70-30, is mind blowing
LikeLike
Fortified by Musk’s money, Trump is renting Madison Square Garden to hold a rally on October 27th. Some are comparing this rally to an infamous Nazi Rally that was held at Madison Square Garden in February, 1939.https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook-pm/2024/10/09/brad-hoylman-sigal-trump-nazi-rally-madison-square-garden-00183120
LikeLike
10 minute walk for me. I’ll definitely swing by and check out the madness.
LikeLike
I reflect that I cannot visualize the process that would take me to Madison Square Garden. Now if you wanted to go to Three-Cornered Garden, that I can manage.
LikeLike
Roy,
I could take the subway to Madison Square Garden, but the thought of listening to that angry racist rant and rave gives me a headache.
LikeLike
You definitely wouldn’t want to go inside. But I’ll swing by and experience the weirdness outside.
LikeLike
Although now that I’m thinking about it, it would be pretty fascinating to actually attend. I wouldn’t want to pay money though.
LikeLike
FLERP,
I wouldn’t go there even if they paid me to.
LikeLike
FLERP, please stop writing personal responses to NYCPSP. If you prefer, I will post your and her email addresses and you can continue on your own time. Otherwise I will delete personal insults that you both trade.
LikeLike
I signed up for a ticket and I appear to have one. (I say “appear to” because given how these guys operate, who knows if the ticket is actually any good.) I’m not sure if I’ll actually go, but as of now I’m planning to. If I do, I’ll report back in the comments about what I saw.
LikeLike
And that means it is time for today’s NYT article to normalize Trump and present his supporters as the “good people” they are:
“The Trump Voters Who Don’t Believe Trump”
“One of the more peculiar aspects of Donald J. Trump’s political appeal is this: A lot of people are happy to vote for him because they simply do not believe he will do many of the things he says he will.”
NYT presents as a FACT that Trump voters SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE HE WILL DO MANY OF THE THINGS HE SAYS HE WILL.
Of course the NYT has no idea what these voters “believe”. They only know what these voters TELL THE REPORTER they believe and the reporter dutifully presents it as truth.
What would be more accurate reporting is:
“A lot of people are happy to vote for him because they simply DO NOT CARE whether or not Trump does many of the things he says he will.”
People who support someone spewing fascist ideas are – by definition – fascist-enablers. Fascism is acceptable. They are not people who don’t support fascism but don’t believe Trump means it just because they tell a NYT reporter that they don’t believe it.
The contrast between the NYT reporting in 2024 and how the NYT reported on David Duke voters when he was running for Louisiana Governor more than 30 years ago is stark.
In one of the most conservative states, David Duke was soundly defeated by an extremely flawed and questionable Democrat. Why? Because people who supported Duke were correctly portrayed as people who supported a white supremacist and thus, supporting racism.
Back then, NYT reporters did not understand that to be “fair and balanced” reporters, they needed to leave out any mention that Duke supporters were fine with racist white supremacy ideas just because they supported a man who spewed the message. Back then, the NYT reporters did not understand that to be “fair and balanced”, they needed to characterize Duke supporters as good non-racist people who “simply do not believe” Duke will do anything racist as Governor. The NYT reporters were not taught that if a Duke supporter said “I strongly oppose racism and white supremacy, and I’m voting for Duke because I know he doesn’t mean any of that”, that meant it was true, and it should be the subject of many stories about these good, non-racist Duke voters who know Duke doesn’t mean the racist things he says.
Back then, Louisiana voters had to OWN their vote for a racist white supremacist. And it turned out that they didn’t want to own their vote for a racist. Regardless of whether they were quietly racist, they did not want to SEEM like a racist to other people. They knew it was wrong.
These days, Trump voters are allowed to vote for a fascist liar spewing hate who has promised to tear down bulwarks that protect our democracy, and they are portrayed in the NYT as good people who SAY don’t want democracy destroyed, AND SAY that they don’t believe Trump means it. So the NYT presents as fact what these voters SAY, instead of presenting as fact that these voters DON’T CARE whether Trump means it or not because fascist and racist lies don’t bother them at all.
The headline should have been:
“The Trump Voters Who AREN’T BOTHERED BY Trump’s fascism”
Trump voters never have to OWN their vote. Even the liberal NYT now says it doesn’t mean they support what Trump stands for, because the Trump voter SAYS it doesn’t mean they support what Trump stand for!
Normalizing Trump voters so they can feel good about their votes, instead of the shame that those Louisiana voters felt because the media did not realize that their sacred journalistic duty was to write dozens of stories that portray David Duke voters as non-racist, “good” people who supported Duke for the most admirable and wholesome non-racist reasons. Duke voters could have been PROUD to vote for Duke if the NYT had adopted their “fair and balanced” news reporting back then and written dozens of stories about how these voters aren’t racist at all (they said so!) and they were “simply” good non-racist people who believed Duke didn’t mean what he said. Just like the NYT portrays the good people who support Trump!
Very scary times.
PS — there was NO “newsworthy” hook for the NYT to write yet another article to normalize Trump voters and inform the public that even the liberal NYT says Trump voters aren’t racist or fascist or anything other than caring good people. It was just a good thing to write for “balance”. Along with a bunch of articles about the big trouble Kamala is in because of all her flaws, that make voters distrust her.
LikeLike
Have you considered whether there is a thing called “polling” that provides information about what voters believe without requiring you to speak directly with those voters?
LikeLike
Nonsensical reply, as usual. Is your point that people admit to liking Trump’s racism and violent rhetoric to strangers who poll them about it, and the people who say they don’t support that, but they will still vote for the guy spewing it, are any different than the other Trump supporters?
The bottom line is that Trump voters CONDONE Trump spewing some of the most hateful, racist, neo-fascist language and his promises to turn this country into an authoritarian state.
That should be the story. Just like it was the story when David Duke was running for Governor.
EVERY Trump voter condones Trump spewing his racist, xenophobic lies and condones his promise to “fix” democracy to make it authoritarian.
There is no difference between loving that ugly rhetoric, and saying that you don’t like it but not being bothered one bit by it.
The story should be why those people who pretend to be bothered aren’t bothered – and every answer to that “why” would present those voters in a light that is shameful, just like David Duke voters were shamed.
But since 2016, this absurd normalizing narrative has been presented as “truth” — that Trump voters aren’t racist or xenophobic or authoritarian neo-fascists just because the candidate they wholeheartedly support is!
Trump voters are the people who need to be “listened to”! They are the best voices who must be heard.
Thank you, NYT, for making it easy for Trump voters to be PROUD of their support. If only the NYT realized they were supposed to make David Duke voters feel good about their vote, too. Maybe the newspaper can write an abject apology to Duke voters now, and how the NYT “misunderstood” them and their admirable goals back then.
A German who voted for Hitler condoned antisemitism. A Trump voter condones his ugly rhetoric.
We USED to know that. Now we embrace the idea that it’s okay to vote for a candidate spewing hate and xenophobic and neo-fascist ideas because those voters “don’t believe it”.
Kamala isn’t making voting for Trump something that his supporters can feel PROUD of – that’s the result of a liberal media that is terrified to call out what is right in front of their face. If you don’t think that makes a difference, ask yourself why a corrupt and flawed Democrat could defeat David Duke in a very conservative state back in the 1990s.
Duke voters felt shame at voting for what he stood for, even if they might not be bothered that much by it.
Trump voters feel pride at voting for him, because the media portrays them as good people, who should be admired as having important points of view. Why would they ever feel shame when even the liberal NYT says they are good people who only support all that is good about Trump and not the bad.
LikeLike
It’s a shame you didn’t go into journalism. It must be extremely frustrating to spend so much time obsessing about how news should be reported and being unable to do anything about it other than complain on a message board. Alas, the choices we make in life.
LikeLike
I just read the article. Wow, what a terrible reading you gave it. The entire thrust of the article is “how can these morons discount the things Trump says, even though his track record makes clear that that’s a really stupid thing to do.” To read this and think that it is “normalizing Trump voters so they can feel good about their votes” is a huge red flag about your reading comprehension. It also once again fails to comprehend that none of these people read the NYT. About 90% of Times readers are Dems, and about 95% of them will be voting for Harris.
You really need to step away from the New York Times for a month or two. I’m serious. It is not helping your mental state.
LikeLike
My other reply is being held up, so all I can say is what is wrong with you, flerp!? You sound just as believable as those Trump voters saying they don’t “believe” that Trump really means the thing they hear him spew in every speech – INCLUDING AT THE SPEECH THEY JUST HEARD – because we all know that even if Trump does mean all of those things he says he will do, they don’t care.
Your faux concern for my mental state is about as believable as those Trump voter’s faux concern about racism and authoritarianism and violence and hate.
Those “morons” as you call educated Trump voters are not “stupid” any more than you are. They just lack a moral compass that tells them the difference between right and wrong.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
Please stop writing personal messages to FLERP. No one is interested in your acrimonious exchanges. STOP.
LikeLike
nycpsp– I think you are incorrect to say those who admit to pollsters they like Trump’s racism and violent rhetoric are no different from those who say they don’t support that but will vote for him anyway.
The only way they are “no different” is that their votes count the same as those who approve of Trump’s rhetoric. But in the variable mix of the Trump voting bloc lies the story of why the vote is even close– a question which is important to the future of the country.
It is quite possible (given social media bubbles and low critical thinking ability due to educational level) to not condone the extreme things Trump says–discounting them as unserious or undoable [with some evidence to back that up from previous term]– while believing his return to office would “bring back” some imagined ’50s [or pre-pandemic] economic heyday, or cancel inflation, or “eliminate wars,” or stop flow of immigration (imagining that as a good thing for economy/ job prospects), or that massive tariffs would somehow improve their economic lot, or that ‘solid Christian values’ will be enforced by govt, et al pie in the sky.
These are the fever-dreams of the– ?? Let’s figure out who, and think on govtl policies that could calm their fears, and instill hopes in a future they presently distrust & thus engage in culture wars that engage their tribal instincts.
LikeLike
My reply being held up explains that in the article, the NYT presents an utterly FALSE characterization of the Trump speech that the voters just heard.
A speech full of hateful rhetoric is reported by the NYT giving details ONLY on Trump’s most acceptable lines:
“There were rough edges in his remarks, and some talk of a stolen election, but mostly he made them feel content in their choice to vote for him. They chuckled at his self-deprecating wisecracks about his age, his body, his hair and his wealth. He talked about American muscle cars and regaled them with tales of how he went toe-to-toe with various world leaders and about his new buddy, Elon Musk. They cooed when he told them his daughter Tiffany was newly pregnant, and clapped when he said, however improbably, that he would work with Democrats to get stuff done. This was the version of Mr. Trump in which they (and their 401ks) wanted to believe.”
“Rough edges”?
The NYT now resorts to using euphemisms like “rough edges” to avoid having to give details of the most despicable things that these voters heard that doesn’t bother them at all.
The NYT has spent many years portraying Trump voters as good and reasonable people, and has tied themselves in knots to present these voters as totally different than the immoral, depraved, racist, fascist man they are supporting for president.
There are endless stories about Trump voters that portray them as good people – ALWAYS as very good people – who don’t support the abhorrent rhetoric of the man they are supporting to lead our country!
Remember back in the “old” days, when voting for someone spewing racial epithets WAS a sign that you were racist? Back when David Duke was roundly defeated by a Democrat who was one of the worst candidates ever.
Duke didn’t lose because his opponent, Edwin Edwards, did everything right! Edwards was one of the worst candidates ever. He won because the media made it clear that it was the people OPPOSING Duke who were the moral and upright ones who should be listened to. Every news story made it clear that voting for a neo-Nazi racist means you are racist whether you admit to being bothered by Duke’s racism or not.
Today, voting for a racist means you aren’t a racist as long as you say you aren’t. Today, voters in Louisiana would have felt PROUD of voting for Duke because even the liberal NYT was portraying them as good non-racist people whose opinions were far more important and worthwhile than those invisible people who didn’t like David Duke whose opinions are simply worthless.
The so-called liberal media is complicit in this corruption of our politics. Making it safe and reasonable to vote for a racist-spewing liar promising a fascist future – even the liberal NYT says it’s all fine and as long as you say you don’t like that major part of Trump’s agenda, you aren’t responsible for your vote!
LikeLike
nycps– Assume you are replying to my 8:59 post with your 9:59 post? (if not, apologies). I would expect Trump’s speech to bigwig bizfolks to be more restrained than usual. My comment was about his typical speeches/ social media rants to the public at large.
LikeLike
“The entire thrust of the article is “how can these morons discount the things Trump says, even though his track record makes clear that that’s a really stupid thing to do.”
Got it. To you this is yet ANOTHER example of how anti-Trump the NYT is, and is very, very mean to Trump supporters.
Because they heard a speech the NYT describes as:
“There were rough edges in his remarks, and some talk of a stolen election, but mostly he made them feel content in their choice to vote for him. They chuckled at his self-deprecating wisecracks about his age, his body, his hair and his wealth. He talked about American muscle cars and regaled them with tales of how he went toe-to-toe with various world leaders and about his new buddy, Elon Musk. They cooed when he told them his daughter Tiffany was newly pregnant, and clapped when he said, however improbably, that he would work with Democrats to get stuff done. This was the version of Mr. Trump in which they (and their 401ks) wanted to believe.”
ROUGH EDGES??!
How would those voters seem if the NYT had highlighted all the abhorrent things that Trump said in that speech – and the completely wacky and false things Trump said – instead of cherry picking some stuff to make Trump look reasonable – and thus Trump voters look reasonable.
That Detroit speech IN ITS ENTIRETY was something that would immediately turn off people who were really bothered by fascism, racism and authoritarianism. Or bothered by a clearly demented candidate. So the NYT left that out and reported instead that (with the exception of some “rough edges” and “self-deprecating” humor), the speech was all about the economic issues and Trump’s appealing family-man personality that these reasonable and concerned non-racist, non-fascist, non-xenophobic Trump voters care about.
The one thing you and I agree on is that this article is definitely a perfect example of the NYT writing a rabidly anti-Trump article. This is certainly as “negative” as a Trump article gets. Must be balanced by articles about how Kamala and Walz are untrustworthy.
Now to address your usual personal insults that you are unable to refrain from spewing in every reply to me:
What if I simply threw your words back to you, flerp!?
If you don’t do legal work for Success Academy or the NYT, It must be extremely frustrating to spend so much time here defending the NYT and Eva Moskowitz from all criticism – critics you insulose who you insult as “obsessed”. Alas, the choices we make in life.
You know nothing of my background or work (unless you are so obsessed with me that you tried to find out).
You folks who belittle me, you aren’t curious. You think you have everything all figured out, so you judge everything and everyone.* Especially anyone who criticizes the NYT or even worse, criticizes Eva Moskowitz! How DARE we have an opinion different than yours! No criticism of Eva Moskowitz or the NYT is ever valid to you — including the NYT’s biased reporting on public education.
People can have different opinions than you without you obsessing about them and insulting them.
*h/t Ted Lasso
LikeLike
nycpsp– Thank you for drawing my attention to this NYT article! As usual with NYT, commenters are as spot-on (if not more so) than article-writers.
Here was my take on another related post of Diane’s today: “‘Normalizing’ Trump is about what we know from observation: a lot of his talk is shock entertainment – for effect in the moment – & has to be dismissed, because he doesn’t stick to it (or anything), just moves randomly among stock ‘shock themes. But these are, in fact, his instinctive go-to thoughts/ fantasies. And we also know he is impulsive, and suspect he would actually carry out frightening impulses if not held in check by those around him. Hence the fear should he gain office again and surround himself with toadies who dare not counter him.”
LikeLike
Sorry, bethree, I wanted to thank you for this comment.
I began this thread with a criticism of a NYT article. I welcome discussion, but instead I received these insulting replies – all from the same person:
“It’s a shame you didn’t go into journalism. It must be extremely frustrating to spend so much time obsessing about how news should be reported and being unable to do anything about it other than complain on a message board. Alas, the choices we make in life.”
“a huge red flag about your reading comprehension.”
“You really need to step away from the New York Times for a month or two. I’m serious. It is not helping your mental state.”
Since Diane Ravitch has ordered me – and not the person who wrote all these insulting replies – to shut up, I won’t be posting here anymore. I expect a lot of snarky and mean comments from the folks who Diane allows to insult me. Don’t worry, I know you will all get a fun laugh at my expense.
Thank you again, bethree, for always being kind and respectful, even when we disagree.
LikeLike
Oh don’t be silly, nycpsp. Your voice here is needed. Just restrain yourself from crossing swords with FLERP! 🙂
LikeLike
I should “restrain myself” whenever flerp! hurls personal insults when he responds to one of my NEW comments (a comment that has nothing to do with flerp! and is not a reply to him)?
flerp! writes:
“It’s a shame you didn’t go into journalism. It must be extremely frustrating to spend so much time obsessing about how news should be reported and being unable to do anything about it other than complain on a message board. Alas, the choices we make in life.”
“a huge red flag about your reading comprehension.”
“You really need to step away from the New York Times for a month or two. I’m serious. It is not helping your mental state.”
bethree, I’m not really interested in being insulted with comments like flerp!’s above and “restraining myself” from replying to his personal insults.
If that makes me too “silly” to be welcome on this blog, then guilty as charged.
LikeLike
Both of you should stop writing at each other. I will give both of you your emails so you can write one another.
LikeLike
Diane,
This was MY comment and flerp! replied to me.
The evidence is right here.
Therefore, I can only interpret your comment as your invitation for me to leave.
My kids have aged out of K-12 education, and the more I am on here, the more I start to question my support of public education. If the insulting responses are now something that you approve of, I no longer want to be here. It just makes me support public schools less, and I don’t want to start re-thinking my support of charters because supporters of public education (or in flerp!’s case, supporters of public education and Success Academy charters) are so nasty.
No doubt this comment will receive lots of snarky “good riddance” posts by the mean girls club of your favorites.
I miss GregB and Linda, but clearly people like us are no longer welcome.
I hope your blog withstands a Trump victory, as I know you have tried to help illuminate ideas. It’s a shame that people who care “too much” aren’t welcome, but those full of snark who drove off GregB are. And if there was a time when your blog readers needed to hear more about fascism and what GregB posted so carefully to explain, it is now.
Bring on the snark and insults.
LikeLike
No, NYCPSP, I do not want you to leave. I want you to stop writing to FLERP.
LikeLike
NYCPSP, I’m going to make an effort to not comment on your comments going forward, and if I do, to not get personal like I did in this thread. That was impulsive and stupid. I hope you make the same effort with respect to my comments. And I apologize to Diane, who’s put up with this longer than she need have.
But I just want to remind you that GregB, who happens to be the only commenter I have ever seen who made physical threats against another commenter, was not “driven off” by “snark.” He left in a dramatic tirade over what he described as the political incompetence of the NPE and this blog in general. It is preserved here if you want to read it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230721023757/https://dianeravitch.net/2023/07/19/npe-releases-bombshell-report-on-latest-credo-study/
LikeLike
FLERP, I value your comments. I value NYPSP’s comments. I don’t enjoy your personal exchanges. I often agree with NYCPSP. I agree that the mainstream media has soft pedaled their reporting on Trump. Yes, The NY Times and others too. We have a full-blown fascist who threatens to use the military to arrest his critics and political opponents. This is not normal. What he says he will do is not normal. His vile attacks on other people is not normal. If the media simply reports what they see and hear, more Americans would know that he is maniacal and unhinged.
I won’t attack you. Neither of you should insult the other. Do not direct your comments to her or about her.
LikeLike
Trump to Be Our Dictator?
Yes, there’s a good chance Donald Trump will win the electoral college vote against Kamala Harris. Why, you ask, would people elect what we used to call a “know it all” as President—again? The simple answer is fear. Fear drives a lot of what we do, as we all know.
We come into this life, as it is said, “naked and afraid.” We’re tiny. Then there’s a big guy with a big voice seemingly in charge. Mommy holds us and we like that, but when the big guy speaks, everyone listens and acts accordingly. He’s not only big, but he’s louder than everyone else. He’s self-assured—doesn’t seem to doubt his rightness. Doesn’t tolerate disagreement. And when everyone stops disagreeing, the house gets quiet again. Dad smiles and everything calms down.
No, you say, my home was not like that. My mom spoke up. Dad was respectful of her opinion—and even of the kids’ opinions. Lucky you. But most folks are born into a home where Dad is the ultimate ruler—the king. Or King.
Our biggest religion told us Man was created first, then Woman was created out of his body. And even though that’s a reversal of actual biology, most of us believed it—or accepted it.
It’s called “authoritarianism.” Or paternalism. It’s the way most homes have operated as long as we can remember. “A man’s home is his castle,” it was said, and still practiced most places. And though we may not use these words today—and most men are careful to not look too bossy—men are mostly still in charge.
We hate constant arguing, back and forth. Mom does too, so she sometimes smiles inwardly and let’s Dad feel like he’s in charge. Everyone relaxes.
Smart politicians know all this and use it to get control of us—our money, our votes, or both. They laugh when people say “They’re all a bunch of crooks.” If so, then why waste time trying to figure out who’s best, or who’s least bad?
And democracy is a lot of bother. We have to read the paper, listen to the news, listen to other people’s opinions. Go to meetings or rallies—and listen to the other side—the other candidates. Etc. It gets very tiresome. Let’s just let Him do it.
It’s always been this way in the US, though practicing democracy was a little easier when our electronic media was less fragmented. Back in the ‘70’s, for instance, we still had the Fairness Doctrine for TV and radio—and there was no internet, no pod casts. So you could get more or less the same story in the news by watching ABC, CBS, or NBC. They were all required to give at least some coverage to “the other side” of any major story. And candidates who felt left out could demand air-time to answer.
Today all major electronic media is owned and operated by rich, white guys. Yes, Fox is more “conservative” or Republican than NBC or CBS, but no networks are run by women, or socialists, or unions.
So most of us just watch what we like, or ignore much of the news and vote—or not—as our parents did, or as our friends do.
But if we do give in this time to our deep-rooted authoritarian impulses, it may hard—or impossible—to get our democratic republic back. When Hitler was trying to run the world back in the ‘30’s and ‘40’s we had that great democratic Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt, in our White House, leading the resistance to the fascism in the world. But if America gives in to fascism—and that’s what Mr. Trump is really selling when he says he’ll be a “dictator on day one.” He’s selling one-man, one-gender, one-race, one religion rule for the wealthy businesses—who in the world can stop him?
We can save our multi-party, multi-gender, multi-religion society now, with our vote. Let’s do it.
LikeLike
Good post, Jack. We probably would not lose our whole democracy with another Trump term: more likely it would be a continued hollowing out of democratic institutions from within. We have been on that road for too long already, with a Congress hobbled by unlimited campaign funds from billionaires (created by govt policy for 44 yrs), turned into a gridlock that can barely pass any legislation (other than tax cuts for the donors), and a SCOTUS “elected” by such donors (no one else). Biden began nudging that cruise ship around; Harris will continue that positive direction. All we can hope for now is to get Democrat voters to the polls en masse.
LikeLike
I hope you’re right–and I’m wrong, if Trump wins. But what could turn it around? If one guy controls the White House, thus the military, the Supreme Ct., his party controls the Congress, who or how does it turn around? What if he declares a national emergency and suspends the Constitution. Who or what stops him? The military? Maybe. The other R’s in the Congress? Maybe.
And maybe not. What if the Mob that stormed the Capital were sanctioned and grown much larger by a President Trump. Who stops it? I have seen many things happen in my 80 plus years that we never thought would or could happen.
The point of my column is, Keep working. The election is not over. “We can rest when we’re dead.”
LikeLike
The Senate is definitely looking very dicey for Dems. Tester way behind in the polls, and West Virginia is definitely going to flip with Manchin gone.
LikeLike
Nice piece on the Montana senate race here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/15/opinion/jon-tester-montana-senate.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
The idea that a state like Montana could have such an impact on the balance of power in Congress is just ridiculous. But it is what it is and it’s never going to change.
LikeLike
I hope you’re right and we only lose some of our “democracy,” or “republic.” But have you ever actually been on an actual “slippery slope”? Like on the bank of a stream or the edge of a lake. I have. And sometimes you start sliding and just can’t stop–no matter what you wish–or say–or scream. If the thugs/fascists hold all the reins of power–Supreme Ct.; White House; House; Senate (our Sherrod Brown may be losing) what can we do? They may shoot protesters. Or put is in jail. Etc.
We MUST elect Harris. Call your fence sitting friends. Put on that bumper sticker. Donate. Etc.
LikeLike
Here are the parts of the Heather Cox Richardson article that I found to be astounding:
“Since he announced his presidential candidacy in June 2015 by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, Trump has trafficked in racist anti-immigrant stories. But since the September 10 presidential debate when he drew ridicule for his outburst regurgitating the lie that legal Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating their white neighbors’ pets, Trump has used increasingly fascist rhetoric. By this weekend, he had fully embraced the idea that the United States is being overrun by Black and Brown criminals and that they, along with their Democratic accomplices, must be rounded up, deported, or executed, with the help of the military.
Myah Ward of Politico noted on October 12 that Trump’s speeches have escalated to the point that he now promises that he alone can save the country from those people he calls ‘animals,’ ‘stone cold killers,’ the ‘worst people,’ and the “]’enemy from within.’ He falsely claims Vice President Kamala Harris ‘has imported an army of illegal alien gang members and migrant criminals from the dungeons of the third world…from prisons and jails and insane asylums and mental institutions, and she has had them resettled beautifully into your community to prey upon innocent American citizens.’
When Trump said, ‘We have to live with these animals, but we won’t live with them for long, a person in the crowd shouted: ‘Kill them!’ “
Jennifer Rubin put it like this today in The Post:
“Trump has consistently evidenced racism throughout his career. He might have flipped on abortion, but racial animus seems baked into his psyche. Whether being sued for refusing to rent to African Americans, demonizing the innocent Central Park Five, promoting the ‘birther’ conspiracy theory to delegitimize the first Black president, announcing his entry into politics by slandering immigrants as murderers and thugs, refusing to denounce white nationalists at a debate in 2016, referring to non-White-majority countries as ‘s—holes’ or preemptively blaming Jews for his defeat, Trump has never departed from a steady stream of racism, xenophobia and antisemitism. His exaggeration about crime in big cities is a racial dog whistle; his phony ‘immigrant crime wave’ is a racial bullhorn. This is who he is.
…for Trump, racism is crucial to his voter suppression and election denial. The spate of voter suppression laws following Jan. 6 disproportionately affecting non-Whites, the targeting of cities in swing states with large Black electorates in 2020 (Detroit, Philadelphia), the attacks on Black poll workers and the ongoing claims of millions of undocumented immigrants voting all have a common purpose. Trump and his followers aim to put non-Whites outside the American electorate (not ‘real Americans’) and cry foul based on unsubstantiated charges of fraud when the candidate loses. If non-Whites are not ‘real’ Americans or stand in the way of Whites attaining or retaining power, then making it harder to vote (or not counting their votes) — and removing immigrants on the mere suspicion that they are illegal — are justified.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/15/trump-racism-detroit-immigration/
Like Rubin notes, it’s NOT just Trump. It’s virtually the entirety of Republican politicians AND Republican voters.
Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin was on CNN yesterday defending Trump’s racist rhetoric.
As Tom Nichols at The Atlantic described it,
“Tapper read Trump’s remarks verbatim, and then asked: ‘Is that something that you support?’ Youngkin replied that Tapper misunderstood Trump, who he said was referring to undocumented immigrants. No, Tapper responded, Trump clearly meant American citizens…Youngkin aw-shucksed his way through stories about Venezuelan criminals and Virginians dying from fentanyl. “’Obviously there is a border crisis,’ Tapper said. ‘Obviously there are too many criminals who should not be in this country, and they should be jailed and deported completely, but that’s not what I’m talking about.’ And then, to his credit, Tapper wouldn’t let go: What about Trump’s threat to use the military against Americans?
Well, Youngkin shrugged, he ‘can’t speak’ for Trump, but he was certain that Tapper was ‘misrepresenting [Trump’s] thoughts.’ “
When Youngkin ran for governor in 2021, his entire campaign was overtly racist. Youngkin claimed – falsely – that Critical Race Theory permeated all of Virginia’s public schools, and that teachers were teaching to kids – white kids – that they were “racists.” Noe of this was true, but Youngkin turned out the low-education white cracker vote.
UVA political analyst Larry Sabato described the Youngkin Critical Race Theory strategy this way:
“The operative word is not critical.And it’s not theory. It’s race. What a shock, huh? Race. That is what matters. And that’s why it’s sticks. There’s a lot of, we can call it white backlash, white resistance, whatever you want to call it. It has to do with race. And so we live in a post-factual era … It doesn’t matter that [CRT] isn’t taught in Virginia schools. It’s this generalized attitude that whites are being put upon and we’ve got to do something about it. We being white voters.”
THIS is where we are now with Trump, and expect it to get even worse between now and November 5.
LikeLike